Mandatory sentencing for marijuana went into effect today

[Daradon]

So when we going to start a civic or provincial petition?

[flamesfever]

So Hoot, if we legalize marijuana, wouldn't most users just grow their own, and if they did, that would surely eat into the government revenue. Comparing alcohol, it would be a lot easier to grow a plant than to distill alcohol.

And if users had marijuana plants sitting around the house, it would be easy for kids to grab the odd leaf and smoke it. I can even remember trying to smoke burdock leaves as a kid. Luckly we only had cigarettes and booze when I was growing up in the 40's and 50's. The drug culture didn't really start until the 60's.

[northcrunk]

I couldnt see people being allowed to have more than a couple plants if it were legalized the same way people brew wine and beer at home in small kits.

The leafs are not the part you smoke anyway, it's the flowers which are not always on the plant but bloom in cycles.

[Knut]

^ I think growing your own and possesion of a large amount will still be illegal. You would only be able to purchase it at government regulated locations.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Growing your own pot isn't as easy as most think. I'd say its about the same effort and commitment as making your own beer or wine. And since it takes months to fully grow and have plants mature, while I'm sure some people would gladly grow their own, I still think most people would purchase ready to go pot rather than growing their own.

And again if you're worried about large grow ops or kids accidentally ingesting pot or smoking pot cause its available....again, no different than right now. The notion that legalizing something will automatically trigger a massive spike in that something is absurd.

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

So Hoot, if we legalize marijuana, wouldn't most users just grow their own, and if they did, that ould surely eat into the government revenue. Comparing alcohol, it would be a lot easier to grow a plant than to distill alcohol.

And if users had marijuana plants sitting around the house, it would be easy for kids to grab the odd leaf and smoke it. I can even
remember trying to smoke burdock leaves as a kid. Luckly we only had cigarettes and booze when I was growing up in the 40's and 50's. The drug culture didn't really start until the 60's.

First off you don't smoke the marijuana leaf, as much as it's the face of the drug war, you smoke the bud (flower) of the plant.

Second, I highly doubt a person would be growing where a kid or anyone would have access to it. It would most likely be in a locked area, not only for safety reasons (kids, criminals, etc) but so the cycle of the plant isn't screwed with while people go in and out. You can't just put them in your living room and water them daily, they need a certain cycle when flowering (12hr on/12hr off, for lights) so that can't be broken.

Third, it would need time to dry, smoking the bud right off the plant is not very potent, if not useless. Drying coverts the THC into it's psychoactive form and removes 3/4th of the water from the plant/bud. There is also a window someone would have to pull the bud off the plant for it to get you high.

TBQH if someone is that careless with their plants, then they are probably just as likely to leave their smoke-able marijuana laying around for kids to take so it won't change much. People will always be careless but that has nothing to do with legality of it.

And of course you are going to have people growing it, but I bet it would be a fraction of people just like those who brew their own beer/wine at home. It's not like people plant a seed and have marijuana to smoke in a week, it is a long process and how many people would have the patients, money, space and time?

Growing by seed you are looking at 17-18 weeks, clone 13-14 weeks, by the time it is smoke-able marijuana. Of course if someone had two rooms they could cut that cycle in half but then you are talking twice as much space, twice as much time (to work on them), and twice as much money for set up.

Assuming the government would sell under the current black market you would have to wonder how much money would someone save, even as a high end user, to make it worth the risk as it could still be illegal to grow, or grow enough to make it worth your while.

Why aren't we overly concerned with kids taking swigs of their parents home brew? My guess is because like a home marijuana grow parents would take the precautions to make sure their kids don't get into it.

[YYC in LAX]

I don't mind these laws. I don't grow, I don't deal. Whatever.

[vektor]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

So Hoot, if we legalize marijuana, wouldn't most users just grow their own, and if they did, that would surely eat into the government revenue. Comparing alcohol, it would be a lot easier to grow a plant than to distill alcohol.

And if users had marijuana plants sitting around the house, it would be easy for kids to grab the odd leaf and smoke it. I can even remember trying to smoke burdock leaves as a kid. Luckly we only had cigarettes and booze when I was growing up in the 40's and 50's. The drug culture didn't really start until the 60's.

no offence, but it's posts like these that really contradict logic. You can up with scenarios like this for anything in the world, using hypotheticals makes it possible to vilify the most inert substances. If you are against something, which is fine, try backing it up with scientific evidence or statistical trends of behavior or something logical beyond the oh we musn't forget the children. In the scientific realm it's juvenile to present arguments like this because of how ridiculous it is, it's the kind of thing that at face value seems harmless but it's pure conjecture underneath and if you use this kind of thinking anyone who debates it will go endlessly in circles. A real argument would be:

studies show neurotoxic effects of marijuana on adolescent brains, therefore, should legalization occur there should be strict regulations to prohibit the acquisition of marijuana by adolescents.

The only thing worse is the "my brother did it and he is schizophrenic now so it's the devil" or "I've done it for years and I'm fine so you are wrong"

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by YYC in LAX

I don't mind these laws. I don't grow, I don't deal. Whatever.

I hate when people think like this but I can understand. I just couldn't imagine saying to someone in 1997, "I'm not gay. I don't want to marry another man. Whatever.", and that being an acceptable response.

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by vektor

no offence, but it's posts like these that really contradict logic. You can up with scenarios like this for anything in the world, using hypotheticals makes it possible to vilify the most inert substances. If you are against something, which is fine, try backing it up with scientific evidence or statistical trends of behavior or something logical beyond the oh we musn't forget the children. In the scientific realm it's juvenile to present arguments like this because of how ridiculous it is, it's the kind of thing that at face value seems harmless but it's pure conjecture underneath and if you use this kind of thinking anyone who debates it will go endlessly in circles. A real argument would be:

studies show neurotoxic effects of marijuana on adolescent brains, therefore, should legalization occur there should be strict regulations to prohibit the acquisition of marijuana by adolescents.

The only thing worse is the "my brother did it and he is schizophrenic now so it's the devil" or "I've done it for years and I'm fine so you are wrong"

I agree with the last part but the rest I'm not too sure about.

I personally don't mind people asking those types of hypotheticals especially when it comes to a subject most people aren't educated in or have been lied to their whole lives about it. Not only that but what if flamesfever has never had the chance to ask someone the questions he wanted to, simplistic or not? What if he continued to believe (and worse spread) what he wanted or was taught instead of asking and me giving a simple response? I honestly never expect to change anyone's mind when I speak on the subject but if they leave the thread knowing a little bit more than I did my job, maybe they will correct the next person who brings up the same lie or misconception.

I find the education aspect of it is the most important because people are truly afraid of it because of how the government and parents portrayed it for so long. Just think about how many people still believe it kills brain cells because of one study done in the 70's, which later showed they were suffocating the monkey's which of course leads to brain damage, not the marijuana itself.

I get where you are coming from and I use to get tired of all the going around in circle type questions or debates but allowing people to ask questions, no matter how simple they may seem is a start to educate people on the truth about marijuana. I'd rather answer flamesfever's question 100 times then let 100 people continue to believe something that isn't true. Like I said I'm not looking at changing flamesfever's mind, and probably never will, but if I can answer some questions to maybe ease his mind a bit I can live with that. You got to start somewhere and maybe if it ever did come to a vote flamesfever might think twice about voting no.

All I ask of people who are against it is to ask questions. And if I can't answer them I'll find the answer and provide a source. I truly just want people to be educated on the subject as I think that will be more important in the next 5, 10, 20 years than anything else. I love talking about it and as imperfect legalization would be I'm confident it would add more than it does right now being illegal.

[vektor]

Yeah I see what you mean. I tend to try to look at disagreements purely from an objective and empirical methodology but sure, in reality if hate and anger can be avoided talking about hypotheticals has some value. The problem to me is that people will invent hypotheticals based on a deep-seeded misconception that isn't being communicated so you end up arguing with someone about something they have no intention of ever thinking critically about.

Maybe I misinterpreted his post but it was just one of those ones that seemed to come from that place where counterpoint won't generate any critical thought. It just hits that barrier of "no, I know you're wrong" and no statistic or logical rebuttal even enters the foray of analysis for logical reasoning. The result being a neverending loop of hypothetical scenarios. That being said this is the only forum I've ever been on where people can go more than a page without hurling hateful remarks at eachother.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

So Hoot, if we legalize marijuana, wouldn't most users just grow their own, and if they did, that would surely eat into the government revenue. Comparing alcohol, it would be a lot easier to grow a plant than to distill alcohol.

Even if a child did get a hold of large quantities of marijuana, it would be nearly impossible for them to ingest a lethal, or even damaging dose. Compare that to almost every other drug out there.

Marijuana may very well be the safest drug there is, that is no exaggeration, no fatality from the drug has even been recorded. In fact, the lethal dosage is so high that only small rodents have been killed by it, the human overdose requires you to ingest massive amounts, and even that will not kill you.

And if users had marijuana plants sitting around the house, it would be easy for kids to grab the odd leaf and smoke it. I can even remember trying to smoke burdock leaves as a kid. Luckly we only had cigarettes and booze when I was growing up in the 40's and 50's. The drug culture didn't really start until the 60's.

That is unlucky actually. Tobacco and alcohol are addicting and can be very damaging including disease and death. It would be far, far better to take up smoking marijuana than tobacco or develop a drinking problem.

[YYC in LAX]

Originally Posted by HOOT

I hate when people think like this but I can understand. I just couldn't imagine saying to someone in 1997, "I'm not gay. I don't want to marry another man. Whatever.", and that being an acceptable response.

I agree with your statement. Perhaps I should have been more clear. I think drug dealing is cheating. Gay people don't get rich for being gay, but drug dealers are cheating the economic system.

I don't deal drugs. I don't buy drugs and I'm not really a fan of pot personally, (it's been three or four years) therefore I'm fine with the new laws that cracks down on dealing. This is where my "whatever" attitude came in.

If you want to grow plants for your own use, grow 5 of them and you'll be fine. No need to be greedy and give the police a reason to be suspicious of your intent. Do you actually need more than 5 for personal use? Serious question as I don't know. That's gotta be plenty for personal use.

I'm not anti-pot, but I'm definitely anti-trafficking and anti-gang.

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by YYC in LAX

I agree with your statement. Perhaps I should have been more clear. I think drug dealing is cheating. Gay people don't get rich for being gay, but drug dealers are cheating the economic system.

We are allowing them to cheat the economic system by giving a fake value to a plant. Outside of gold and platinum how many commodities go for $200/oz?

[SebC]

Originally Posted by YYC in LAX

I agree with your statement. Perhaps I should have been more clear. I think drug dealing is cheating. Gay people don't get rich for being gay, but drug dealers are cheating the economic system.

I agree that drug dealers are getting rich off a market failure, but it's criminalization (i.e. laws like these) that causes that market failure in the first place.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by HOOT

I hate when people think like this but I can understand. I just couldn't imagine saying to someone in 1997, "I'm not gay. I don't want to marry another man. Whatever.", and that being an acceptable response.

Not a good parallel. One is a human rights issue, the other isn't. I mean, I guess in a libertarian sense, making drugs illegal is a rights issue. I sure don't think the government has the right to tell us what we can do to our bodies. But, it's not a prejudicial human rights issue where one groups is being excluded from another group, and treated differently. At least with drugs being illegal everyone is being treated the same way, and in that sense, fair to some extent.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by zamler

Even if a child did get a hold of large quantities of marijuana, it would be nearly impossible for them to ingest a lethal, or even damaging dose. Compare that to almost every other drug out there.

Marijuana may very well be the safest drug there is, that is no exaggeration, no fatality from the drug has even been recorded. In fact, the lethal dosage is so high that only small rodents have been killed by it, the human overdose requires you to ingest massive amounts, and even that will not kill you.
That is unlucky actually. Tobacco and alcohol are addicting and can be very damaging including disease and death. It would be far, far better to take up smoking marijuana than tobacco or develop a drinking problem.

To me I think this is a bit misleading, no drug is safe, at an extent they all do damage.

While grass might not be the end all and be all of addictive drugs, I did post studies earlier that talked about the damage to white developing cells in the brains and damage to developing lungs. In other words its not exactly the best thing in the world for younger people.

I've also seen some studies recently that do show a growth of tumors int he lungs of moderate to habitual users. To this point they aren't cancerous but they do effect the efficiency of lungs.

The effects of any drug or liquor or cigarettes when you get that high feelingor whatever is your bodies way of screaming, you're poisoning me you're poisoning me.

I also think in terms of grass addiction, its not a physical addiction its a mental addiction, as in they hide behind the whole its just some harmless grass and everyone says its safe so why not. I would be interested in seeing a study on the percentage of users that graduate to what's considered heavy use.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Not a good parallel. One is a human rights issue, the other isn't. I mean, I guess in a libertarian sense, making drugs illegal is a rights issue. I sure don't think the government has the right to tell us what we can do to our bodies. But, it's not a prejudicial human rights issue where one groups is being excluded from another group, and treated differently. At least with drugs being illegal everyone is being treated the same way, and in that sense, fair to some extent.

Strongly disagree.

Control over one's body is the most simplistic of human rights arguments.

Whether I want to put a penis in me and not be persecuted for it or whether I want to put a cigarette or a joint in me, is a fundamental qualifier of personal freedom and human rights.

Also, the enforcement is very much a prejudicial human rights issue as in the States, minorities are so vastly overrepresented in drug arrests to the extent that they appear as modern extension of Jim Crow style racially motivated persecution.

Things are similar in Canada, where in urban areas, the vast majority of low-level drug arrests are of visible minorities, often relatively new landed immigrants (this is especially true in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver).

[YYC in LAX]

Is there any chance that the complete legalization of pot and in-store sales would actually increase the cost? i.e. Canada's high tax rates for alcohol/tobbaco.

Or is the idea (for legalization advocates) to have in-store sales as well as people growing out of their homes and selling privately under the table?

[Hatter]

Originally Posted by YYC in LAX

Is there any chance that the complete legalization of pot and in-store sales would actually increase the cost? i.e. Canada's high tax rates for alcohol/tobbaco.

Or is the idea (for legalization advocates) to have in-store sales as well as people growing out of their homes and selling privately under the table?

Prices would likely go down I believe. The high cost of pot comes from the legal danger of growing/selling, and not necessarily the cost of manufacture. Even with the government's high sin taxes, the cost would probably be lower.